always deviating a little, becomes at laft capricious and cafual. Shakespeare, whether life or nature be his fubject, fhews plainly, that he has feen with his own eyes; he gives the image which he receives, not weakened or distorted by the intervention of any other mind, the ignorant feel his reprefentations to be juft, and the learned fee that they are compleat.

He

Perhaps it would not be easy to find any authour, except Homer, who invented fo much as Shakespeare, who fo much advanced the ftudies which he cultivated, or effufed fo much novelty upon his age or country. The form, the characters, the language, and the shows of the English drama are his. feems, fays Dennis, to have been the very original of our English tragical harmony, that is, the harmony of blank verfe, diverfified often by diffyllable and triffyllable terminations. For the diversity diftinguishes it from heroick barmony, and by bringing it nearer to common ufe makes it more proper to gain attention, and more fit for action and dialogue. Such verfe we make when we are writing profe; we make fuch verfe in common converfation.

I know not whether this praife is rigorously juft. The diffyllable termination, which the critick rightly appropriates to the drama, is to be found, though, I think, not in Gorboduc which is confeffedly before our authour; yet in Hieronnymo, of which the date is not certain, but which there is reafon to believe at

leaft

leaft as old as his earliest plays. This however is cer tain, that he is the firft who taught either tragedy or comedy to please, there being no theatrical piece of any older writer, of which the name is known, except: to antiquaries and collectors of books, which are fought because they are scarce, and would not have been scarce, had they been much esteemed.

To him we must afcribe the praife, unless Spenfer may divide it with him, of having first discovered to how much smoothness and harmony the English language could be softened. He has speeches, perhaps fometimes scenes, which have all the delicacy of Rowe, without his effeminacy. He endeavours indeed commonly to ftrike by the force and vigour of his dialogue, but he never executes his purpose better, than when he tries to footh by foftness.

Yet it must be at laft confeffed, that as we owe every thing to him, he owes fomething to us; that, if much of his praise is paid by perception and judgement, much is likewife given by custom and veneration. We fix our eyes upon his graces, and turn them from his deformities, and endure in him what we fhould in another loath or defpife. If we endured, without praifing, refpect for the father of our drama might excufe us; but I have seen, in the book of fome modern critick, a collection of anomalies, which fhew that he has corrupted language by every

mode

mode of depravation, but which his admirer has accumulated as a monument of honour.

He has fcenes of undoubted and perpetual excellence, but perhaps not one play, which, if it were now exhibited as the work of a contemporary writer, would be heard to the conclufion. I am indeed far from thinking, that his works were wrought to his own ideas of perfection; when they were fuch as would fatisfy the audience, they fatisfied the writer, It is feldom that authours, though more ftudious of fame than Shakespeare, rife much above the ftandard of their own age; to add a little to what is best will always be fufficient for prefent praise, and those who find themselves exalted into fame, are willing to credit their encomiafts, and to spare the labour of con tending with themselves.

It does not appear, that Shakespeare thought his works worthy of posterity, that he levied any ideal tribute upon future times, or had any further prof v pect, than of prefent popularity and present profit, When his plays had been acted, his hope was at an end; he folicited no addition of honour from the reader. He therefore made no fcruple to repeat the fame jefts in many dialogues, or to entangle different plots by the fame knot of perplexity, which may be at leaft forgiven him, by those who recollect, that of Congreve's four comedies, two are concluded by a marriage in a mask, by a deception, which perhaps

never happened, and which, whether likely or not, he did not invent.

So careless was this great poet of future fame, that, though he retired to eafe and plenty, while he was yet little declined into the vale of years, before he could be difgufted with fatigue, or difabled by infirmity, he made no collection of his works, nor defired to refcue thofe that had been already published from the depravations that obfcured them, or fecure to the rest a better destiny, by giving them to the world in their genuine state.

Of the plays which bear the name of Shakespeare in the late editions, the greater part were not published till about feven years after his death, and the few which appeared in his life are apparently thrust into the world without the care of the authour, and therefore probably without his knowledge.

Of all the publishers, clandeftine or profeffed, their negligence and unskilfulness has by the late revifers been fufficiently fhown. The faults of all are indeed numerous and grofs, and have not only cor rupted many paffages perhaps beyond recovery, but have brought others into fufpicion, which are only. obfcured by obfolete phrafeology, or by the writer's unfkilfulness and affectation.. To alter is more eafy than to explain, and temerity is a more common quality than diligence. Those who saw that they

must

muft employ conjecture to a certain degree, were willing to indulge it a little further. Had the authour published his own works, we should have fat quietly down to disentangle his intricacies, and clear his obfcurities; but now we tear what we cannot loofe, and eject what we happen not to understand.

The faults are more than could have happened without the concurrence of many caufes. The stile of Shakespeare was in itself ungrammatical, perplexed and obfcure; his works were tranfcribed for the players by those who may be fuppofed to have feldom understood them; they were tranfinitted by copiers equally unfkilful, who still multiplied errours; they were perhaps fometimes mutilated by the actors, for the fake of fhortening the speeches; and were at last printed without correction of the press.

In this ftate they remained, not as Dr. Warburton fuppofes, because they were unregarded, but because the editor's art was not yet applied to modern languages, and our ancestors were accustomed to fo much negligence of English printers, that they could very patiently endure it. At laft an edition was undertaken by Rowe; not because a poet was to be published by a poet, for Rowe feems to have thought very little on correction or explanation, but that our authour's works might appear like those of his fraternity, with the appendages of a life and recommendatory preface. Rowe has been clamorously

blamed